Author
Topic: What is the currently best Desktop Search software? (Read 404526 times)

A further update - standby and hibernate work fine with Outlook minimized to tray and with the X1 Deskbar displayed as well (ie when you wake the computer up again Outlook is fine), the critical thing seems to be NOT enabling the system tray icon. I notice that with the icon displayed all of the X1 processes are running all the time. When it's not displayed, only X1FileMonitor runs in the background. As far as I can tell, the system tray icon serves to keep all of X1 loaded in the background and to (greatly) speed up the display of the GUI. This is the only drawback that I can see to running X1 at the moment - even with 2GB of RAM I am waiting for upwards of 25 seconds (just timed it) for it to load.

PS Armando - you read my mind! I was just reading over Carol's previous post and wondering the same thing.

"Some people have a way with words, other people,... oh... have not way" - Steve Martin

I reported a couple of bugs to Exalead - so far only an automated response.

If that is how they respond to a potential customer I don't think it will be staying long ...

The biggest bug is that you can't look for exact phrases. It says put exact phrases in double quotes "like this" but unfortunately it still turns up ALL occurrences of any words in the phrase (in the is case every "like " and "this").

There is an "Advanced Search" option but all it does is take the search details and format it into a search string to use in the normal search box - so exact phrase "like this" entered without quotes just has the quotes added.

The other problem is I don't really believe the indexing is complete or fully updated. I set up a new Outlook profile with all my PST files included and rebuilt the search index based on the new profile - trouble is at least one PST file seems to have been omitted from indexing! I rebuilt the index again and it was indexed that time. Strange but I don't feel confident that indexes are being fully maintained.

No way to add file types to get indexed. For example, there are plain text files with an extension .SUB or .SRT (movie subtitles) that don’t require any complicated parsing, but they are never listed among the results. (CDS can do this.)

No way to move (or rebuild) the entire index on alternate location. It would be useful for some reasons. (CDS can do this.)

The index is not updated as it should be. It updates properly on Outlook, but not on the files. Deleted file remains listed in the results even three days after its removal. Newly created, copied, renamed or downloaded files don’t appear until some change is made in the "Indexed Items" setting or restarting. The Index monitoring just says "up to date". (Performance is set to default. Verified on two PCs running Win XP SP2 with all the latest patches, both with full administrator’s rights.)

Some files with accented characters in theirs filename display "no preview available". They are properly found and listed in results and can be opened normally. But only the same file with accented characters removed can be previewed. The strange fact is that this doesn't apply to Outlook mail attachments; they are all properly displayed regardless of theirs filenames.

The Czech translation made me laugh loud. One can understand that the translator doesn't know the term "regular expression" and translated it as "common expression", which nobody understands. But he mixed up words "within" and "without", so now one of the menu items reads "Search without results". Quite hilarious.

EOD doesn't search as you type, CDS does. Not very useful in CDS, though.

EOD doesn't scroll automatically to position of the first occurrence of the searched term. This is well balanced with its showing the part of the contents with the first occurrence in bold.

EOD doesn't mark multiple searched term with different colors, CDS does and allows individual searching.

On the other hand, EOD can preview even complicated PDFs much better than CDS. There's no need to show the actual layout, if you're searching, the plain text would do.

No way to move (or rebuild) the entire index on alternate location. It would be useful for some reasons. (CDS can do this.)

In EOD you can put the index where you like (at least in the latest build you can) - I moved it to a separate folder on a completely different drive. You can't 'move' it though it has to be rebuilt.

Quote

Some files with accented characters in theirs filename display "no preview available". They are properly found and listed in results and can be opened normally. But only the same file with accented characters removed can be previewed. The strange fact is that this doesn't apply to Outlook mail attachments; they are all properly displayed regardless of theirs filenames.

That explains a lot!

Quote

EOD doesn't mark multiple searched term with different colors

Seems to for me - but this seems to have killed exact phrase match.

Quote

The index is not updated as it should be. It updates properly on Outlook, but not on the files.

That's what I figured - except I seem to have probl;ems with Outlook updating properly too.

I think on balance I am going to remove Exalead.

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that there is no decent solution (even paid for at a reasonable price) which satisfies my need for Outlook indexing multiple PST files without having them load in my Outlook profile every time I use Outlook.

Based on the feedback here and what I saw in the demo, I went ahead and popped for Archivarius about a week ago. It was only $29; I figured if it didn't work out I could give the thing to my sister as a gift. My plan was to keep both Archivarius and X1 running side-by side for awhile to contrast and compare.

Archivarius took about 8 hours to build its initial index, after a few false starts. When I noticed it was opening .ISO images and indexing their contents I stopped the index operation and excluded them. This happened a few times as I spotted Archivarius getting hung up on various large media I did not want indexed.

By contrast X1's reindexing is multi-threaded and automatic. X1 allows use of the search tool while indexing is in progress, Archivarius does not.

I wonder, however, how much horsepower is sucked up with X1's background indexer running all the time. I've watched its indexing process + document unpacker with Process Explorer, and caught it using horrific amounts of RAM and CPU for brief times. But I cannot actually say it's had an impact on my user experience. I suspect, however, that it has contributed to some system instability since X1's document unpacker gets hung occasionally.

Reindexing completed, the first test I ran was to look for the same search terms in both products. Archivarius generally returned results slower than X1, but X1 does that "autocomplete" thing which narrows the search as you type. Personally, I never liked that, as it messes with my mind while I'm trying to type. I much prefer Archivarius' old school "collect the parameters then search" approach. So point to Archivarius.

Search results are much prettier in X1, a more finished/polished display. But for my purposes, I'd rather view the document using its original container/app, so that has never impressed me. I want search engines to search, dammit, and leave the rest of it to the operating system. Archivarius' results pane is very usable, even if some of my email is formatted funny. But again -- I want fast, accurate results and in this Archivarius delivers.

And accuracy: Archivarius seems to do a MUCH better job at finding things than X1. For instance, I *know* have a Word document someplace with some old bank account numbers, long since closed. I've searched for it many times with X1 and always came up dry. Archivarius found it on the first try, and ranked it #1.

Another example: some email from a science-fiction author I'd communicated with back in 2004. I wanted to drop him a line and say hi again, but could not find his email address with X1. Archivarius found it, again, first time out and ranked it #1. It also found the entire email thread from 2004, our entire exchange, as a bonus. I thought it had been lost forever, victim perhaps of the great Format C: DrivePocalypse of 2005.

I was so impressed I uninstalled X1 right then and there. Archivarius is now my primary desktop search tool. This is a big deal for me, since I was an X1 early adoptor, having paid $79 for the thing when it was spanking new, before it became the basis of Yahoo Desktop search. I've participated in their betas, installed crappy test builds, and worked with their tech folk to resolve issues which later got folded into future builds. For awhile, I felt invested in the product and the company. Since then I've drifted away and haven't even been downloading the latest X1 releases, but I still felt strongly about the product.

So ditching X1 in favor of Archivarius is high praise indeed coming from someone like me.

Just to follow up on an earlier post about Archivarius 3000 version 3.93 triggering a virus alert in Webroot/Sophos AV, it IS a false positive. Both Panda and BitDefender Online virus scans failed to flag the file... I finally got worried enough about the repeated warnings from Webroot Spysweeper with AV that I ran the additional tests this morning.

Great description of your experiences with Archivarius, Ralf. Thanks for sharing it here. I'm having a similar experience in that I was a longtime user of X1, got fed up, tried and bought Archivarius and quickly fell in love with it -despite an inital dislike for the way results are formatted (missed X1's Stellent viewers). Now I'm running the X1 6 beta side by side with Archivaruis but find that I really don't use it much (did you ever try it?). Too bad neither solution works that well with Outlook - as noted above, X1 crashes and takes Outlook with it given that certain options are selected in each (if X1's system tray icon option, Outlook's minimize to tray option, and XP's standby/hibernate options are enabled) while Archivarius chokes on indexing Outlook pst files. I think in a perfect world (in which these issues were, er, not issues) I'd prefer Archivarius because it's footprint is demure. Still playing with X1, though...

I guess it's time to write to Archivarius' developer - let him know about the false positive and request again that he make this:

Quote

Currently A3000 use OLE to access Outlook mailboxes. A3000 also support direct access (via "Custom mails"), it is useful if PST file is not connected to Outlook (e.g. just stored somewhere as backup).But OLE access is slow and not good for latest version of Outlook. We should switch to COM method (it is used in other search systems). We are planning to switch in the future.

a priority.

EDIT: cleaned up spelling, added the odd missing article...UPDATE: Message sent to Archivarius' developer. I'll let you know about the response.

"Some people have a way with words, other people,... oh... have not way" - Steve Martin

Thanks Ralf, you just convinced me to try a product I had never heard of until this thread. You did a good writeup, and the personal testimony about X1 helped convince me. I'm going to download Archivarius and give it a try.

But like Darwin said, the switching to the "COM method" instead of OLE accesss to PST files would be a nice thing for the next release.

Also :

1- a feature to save searches or different configurations (X1's implementation of saved searches, a bit like Outlook'S "search folders", is nicely done)

2- easier keyboard navigation in the main window (it IS possible to use the standard keys like ALT+letter, TAB, etc., but... well, try it and you'll see what I mean). (X1 is better at that)

3- easier way to add or remove folders for indexing from the index, and to be able choose if new folders are included or excluded of an index, etc.... Without having to rebuild the index entirely each time. I find that apart from an obvious flexibility (to be able to create different small index for very specific folders, etc.), there's a certain rigidity in the way index are handled.

After the comments here, I thought I'd look at Archivarius. Installed it and then saw the option to estimate the Index size. Still analysing but showing an index of 80GB on data of 216 GB. Can this be right (I notice that the stats previously given seem much more reasonable)? Don't think I will ever run it if it is.

Hi Dormouse - no, that's not right. I had the same reaction when I first ran a trial (I'd forgotten abou this). As I recall the index was going to be on the order of 6 or 7 GB for 80 GB of data but came in at well under a GB. There's an index compression feature as well, which is useful because the index size does creep up over time.

"Some people have a way with words, other people,... oh... have not way" - Steve Martin

Just to close the door on the false-positive saga, Sophos has written back to confirm that the Archivarius 3000 exe is "clean".

Dormouse - the author is very helpful, drop him a line with feature requests, suggestions, and questions. I suppose we should all be contacting him about the index file size estimate being so off. I've never mentioned it and it's persisted through numerous builds. Right, off to do that now!

"Some people have a way with words, other people,... oh... have not way" - Steve Martin

I've written to the author about the index size estimate. I pointed out that this may well be costing him customers who see the estimate and don't even try the software! Until Dormouse pointed it out, I'd forgotten that I very nearly didn't try it myself for that reason.

"Some people have a way with words, other people,... oh... have not way" - Steve Martin

I've written to the author about the index size estimate. I pointed out that this may well be costing him customers who see the estimate and don't even try the software! Until Dormouse pointed it out, I'd forgotten that I very nearly didn't try it myself for that reason.

Darwin, you're reading my mind! Your turn. I was going to send the exact same message to the author.

I noticed that a number of contributors were praising Archivarius, so I thought I would give it a go. On the site it says, "you may try it in a fully functional version. The trial period is 30 days" After installing it and running it, I discovered that the trial version only indexes 10,000 files ( as well as only allowing 100 accesses). Only 10,000 files is a joke - how can you evaluate a search engine like that??? Of course it will be lightning quick!

Needles to say, Archivarius was instantly removed from my PC and will not be on it again.

Here I must have a rant. I find nothing more irritating and annoying than software being promoted under false pretences. ( a similar ploy is software promoted as being freeware and then you discover it is trialware). Do software purveyors not realise that if you can't trust your first contact with them, you are unlikely to trust them thereafter, and unlikely to do business with them?

Incidentally, I use X1 Enterprise Client Version 5.6.2 which is free and does allow indexing of PST files in any folder, which seems not to be the case with the latest version on their site, 5.6.4, so I have not updated (and still have the setup file). The only problems I find with X1 are that it sometimes corrupts the PST files, and is slow to wake up from the tray. But the searching and previewing are good. So looks like I'm going to stick with it for now.

But Archivarius will give you more precise results and will be lighter on resources. That's what everybody -- or most people --here, have found.

I agree that the 10000 files limit could be an annoying surpise : it is NOT advertised. You're right. (You might not feel like it, but you could send them a little note. That's what I'd do : some developers don't realize how small things like that can make all the difference and... They need to be told nicely.)

Is an unadvertised 10000 file limit on a free trial really the same as falsely promoting something under the "freeware" tag when it's in fact... a trialware?

I agree that the 10000 files limit could be an annoying surpise : it is NOT advertised. You're right. (You might not feel like it, but you could send them a little note. That's what I'd do : some developers don't realize how small things like that can make all the difference and... They need to be told nicely.)

Humm, I'm pretty sure I noticed a file limit somewhere when I tried Archivarius - but it might have been a "sorry, can't index more than..." message rather than something advertised up-front.

Is an unadvertised 10000 file limit on a free trial really the same as falsely promoting something under the "freeware" tag when it's in fact... a trialware?

It's certainly an "artificial limit" to put on the application, rather than the normal additional-feature-in-payware-version thing, but imho it can still be labeled as freeware as long as it doesn't have a trial period, nag screens, etc...

EDIT: oops, shows how long it is since I tried Archivarius - it is indeed limited trialware (limited amount of days as well as program executions).

As I love Archivarius and as there are features and changes that I'd love to see implemented, I will e-mail the author about this... Why? Because the more people buy Archivarius, the more time the author will be able to devote to developing it and implementing the changes I'd like to see. Oh crap. That would also mean the less time he will have for support and customer service! Decisions...

"Some people have a way with words, other people,... oh... have not way" - Steve Martin

As I love Archivarius and as there are features and changes that I'd love to see implemented, I will e-mail the author about this... Why? Because the more people buy Archivarius, the more time the author will be able to devote to developing it and implementing the changes I'd like to see. Oh crap. That would also mean the less time he will have for support and customer service! Decisions...

I agree that the 10000 files limit could be an annoying surpise : it is NOT advertised. ...Is an unadvertised 10000 file limit on a free trial really the same as falsely promoting something under the "freeware" tag when it's in fact... a trialware?

In terms of misleading the person downloading the software, there is no difference. It's a lie, plain and simple. Not the truth. Trying to sucker someone into installing your software under false pretenses. That's why I wouldn't use such software.

If Archivarius really is "more precise results and will be lighter on resources", surely the software authors would like me to check this on all my files? The limitation seems to me just a way of avoiding a true comparison with other software - until you've parted with your cash, when it's too late.